linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] i3c: master: Add Qualcomm I3C controller driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d0b178ab-ad22-4230-a790-6a19a6abfd89@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:28:07 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Mukesh Kumar Savaliya <quic_msavaliy@...cinc.com>,
 alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
 conor+dt@...nel.org, jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com,
 linux-i3c@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@...cinc.com>
Cc: andersson@...nel.org, konradybcio@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] i3c: master: Add Qualcomm I3C controller driver

On 26/03/2025 15:16, Mukesh Kumar Savaliya wrote:
> +
> +static int i3c_geni_resources_init(struct geni_i3c_dev *gi3c, struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	gi3c->se.base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> +	if (IS_ERR(gi3c->se.base))
> +		return PTR_ERR(gi3c->se.base);
> +
> +	gi3c->se.clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "se-clk");

Never tested.

> +	if (IS_ERR(gi3c->se.clk))
> +		return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, PTR_ERR(gi3c->se.clk),
> +							"Unable to get serial engine core clock: %pe\n",
> +							gi3c->se.clk);
> +
> +	ret = device_property_read_u32(&pdev->dev, "se-clock-frequency", &gi3c->clk_src_freq);

I don't see previous comments implemented. Comment was: "Drop".

You did not test the DTS - again - even though I asked for that.

You claim you did internal review, but I have doubts because internal
review would tell you how to test it (there is comprehensive internal
guide - see go/upstream). Then the testing would point out this issue.

Such trivial things should not be in v1 even. But they happened so you
got the review. Now you sent v2 ignoring that public review.

Sorry guys, please improve internal processes instead of wasting
reviewers time.

NAK.

Best regards,
Krzysztof